701. Two More Fleas

Comment #147429 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 11:37 am

491. Comment #147426 by The Reverend Dark on March 20, 2008 at 11:31 am

Oh, and everyone, happy upcoming Jewish Zombie day - do you all have enough shotgun shells, bats or bladed weapons?

I have my mother in law over. Does that count?

Although come to think of it, she'll likely be at Mass for most of the weekend. What a waste of a perfectly good holiday.

702. Two More Fleas

Comment #147227 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 3:49 am

Oh, and it's Reverend Elephant to you. (Thanks Ian Bamlett. I intend to have some fun with this.)

703. Two More Fleas

Comment #147226 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 3:46 am

478. Comment #147215 by vacantmind on March 20, 2008 at 3:26 am

Elephant what on earth are you doing here? You are okay? What? The worms keep asking you to bow them since they think they are the ancestors of you. I see. You are sick and tired of it. Don't worry. I will talk to them. Now you go and take a rest. Stay away from the worms and stick with your own KIND. That will help.

I think you are mistaken. The worms are not my ancestors. We have a common ancestor, several million generations back. That makes them my xxxth cousins.

I'm not in the habit of bowing down to my cousins. Unlike your ancestors, who have apparently been much more intimate with theirs for some considerable time.

Ideas pass through your little clear mind like neutrinos, don't they? How did anything at all stick? Did you run out of space after you acquired a belief in Birmingham Palace?

704. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146780 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 11:59 am

88. Comment #146770 by Teratornis on March 19, 2008 at 11:42 am

I read one interpretation that this also applies to weather forecasters, people who predict the outcomes of sporting matches, investment advisors, economists who make projections

So there is something good in religion, then.

and of course scientists.

Ah.

705. Fleabytes

Comment #146610 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 8:12 am

6198. Comment #146600 by Pathfinder on March 19, 2008 at 8:06 am

The only thing is, if I were not a Christian I would be far, far worse.

So you're saying that you're such an asshole that you need the threat of eternal damnation by a sky-bully to keep it down to comparing people to mass murderers?

I think we're done.

706. Fleabytes

Comment #146580 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:52 am

6174. Comment #146566 by Pathfinder on March 19, 2008 at 7:43 am

Flagged offensive.

There is absolutely no call for comparing posters here to mass murderers. Did you learn to do that in church?

707. Fleabytes

Comment #146560 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:36 am

6163. Comment #146539 by mlearnedfriend on March 19, 2008 at 7:19 am

accuracy of subsequent versions? - an ancient oral tradition was more accurate than the game chinese whispers as played today by our digital colleagues. Firstly you were expected to learn it word for word and secondly this was only a one generation time delay.

I'm not sure how this helps you.

It might mean that a traditional verse survives with reasonable accuracy. But first, someone has to put it into this form. You would have to establish that this was the eye witness, or at least that the eye witness was able to audit the verse version. How are you going to achieve that?

708. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146527 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:01 am

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where does it say in the bible that lesbianism is wrong? Or do we think this is a lot of screwed up people making a load of things up?

709. Two More Fleas

Comment #146457 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 5:35 am

Since we have this:
416. Comment #146419 by clearmind on March 19, 2008 at 4:23 am

To Mphil
(construct a proof of at least 40 steps of whatever logical theorem you like.)
1. My best camera like eyes refute evolution

- as part of a supposedly logical argument, we may as well start here.

AFAIK, this is wooterspeak for "eyes perform better than a camera, therefore evolution is false". Apart from the obvious non-sequitur and the fact that the evolution of the eye have been explained many times in this forum, the basic premiss is false. The human eye, even a perfect one, does not function better than a half-decent camera.

This is obvious if you consider how it is that we are able to do photography as art, so that the photo shows things in a way which we do not believe we see.

The human eye has a fixed focal length of 22mm approx. It has no zoom capabilities, which means that we are restricted to a particular viewpoint, roughly equivalent to a 50mm prime lens fitted to a 35mm camera. That's a pretty major limitation.

A relatively cheap 50mm prime has a maximum aperture (light gathering ability) of f/1.8, compared to f/3.2 for the (young) human eye (it decays with age). This is an inverse square ratio, which means that the artificial eye is roughly 3x as effective at gathering light.

The human eye has a maximum sensitivity of approx ISO 800. That is about what you would expect from a standard point and shoot. A bottom of the range SLR will have ISO 1600 or greater. It does have a much lower minimum sensitivity (around ISO 1 compared to ISO 100), but this isn't awfully more useful, since you can just change the shutter speed or stick grey (ND) filters in front of the lens to achieve the same effect.

The human eye is pretty good at resolving detail. If you look at maximum resolution, it's about equivalent to 74 megapixels, which is well beyond the range of current digital cameras. Problem is, that is not a fair comparison. The eye only works at that kind of detail near the centre of the image. The edges - peripheral vision - have very poor resolution. Only the vaguest shapes can be made out, and without any meaningful colour. In that sense, the best comparison is to a much longer lens. Using a conservative 150mm, this means that the resolution of the eye is only equivalent to around 8 megapixels, which is well within the range of fairly basic modern cameras.

The eye doesn't win on dynamic range (the difference between brightest and dimmest you can see) either. It manages about 7 f-stops at any one time. That's slightly better than standard colour film, but worse than black and white film, and well below what a modern camera can do. The brain does manage to fuse different images together so that we can build up a picture with an apparently much greater dynamic range than that. But that doesn't tell you anything about the eye. You can achieve the same effect in Photoshop with multiple photos.

The human optic system is also limited in terms of capture time. What we perceive is roughly equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/30-1/50 of a second. That is why it is possible to mess around with pictures of waterfalls and fountains, either creating a smoothed-out effect by using a slower speed, or picking a quicker one and freezing the water droplets. A low range SLR can select a shutter speed from 1/4000 sec to 30 sec, or pretty much anywhere in between.

As clever as the human eye is, there is simply no sensible basis for asserting that it is better than a "best camera", or even a basic one.

710. Two More Fleas

Comment #146443 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 5:04 am

414. Comment #146415 by clearmind on March 19, 2008 at 4:20 am

To: hungarianelephant
How about back to LOGIC?

How do you mean, back to logic? In English, that presupposes that there was some logic to begin with.

Poorly constructed analogies do not constitute logic.

Saying "logic" does not constitute logic.

Typing in block capitals does not constitute logic.

Posting the same inane nonsense over and over again does not constitute logic.

It gives us all a good laugh, though. Do keep it up.

711. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #145963 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Cocker spaniels also tend to lead happy lives. I wouldn't want to be one, though.

712. Two More Fleas

Comment #145921 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 am

374. Comment #145871 by clearmind on March 18, 2008 at 8:51 am

wooter's best post yet, by a long chalk.

366. Comment #145862 by clearmind on March 18, 2008 at 8:41 am

That there is a Birmingham palace

Heh hay! Birmingham Palace is back. We missed it. Apparently it evolved into Buckingham Palace for a while, but now it's back to Birmingham Palace.

Now, what could the mechanism for this have been?

713. Fleabytes

Comment #145744 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 4:39 am

5636. Comment #144990 by clearthinker on March 17, 2008 at 6:29 am

Well, David, I must say that your post makes my point more eloquently than I ever could. No engagement, just quote-mining.

You have obviously not read the wording of the Mental Health Act.

Er, yes I have.

How about this, from the code of practice (section 118(2B)):

(2B) In preparing the statement of principles the Secretary of State shall, in particular, ensure that each of the following matters is addressedâ€"

(a) respect for patients' past and present wishes and feelings,

(b) respect for diversity generally including, in particular, diversity of religion, culture and sexual orientation (within the meaning of section 35 of the Equality Act 2006),

(c) minimising restrictions on liberty,

(d) involvement of patients in planning, developing and delivering care and treatment appropriate to them,

(e) avoidance of unlawful discrimination,

(f) effectiveness of treatment,

(g) views of carers and other interested parties,

(h) patient wellbeing and safety, and

(i) public safety.

Seems to me that the patients' rights are considered fairly important.

But of course,4 you know that, because you then choose not to quote the next part of my post 143444.

Sectioning is done to protect them from what they might do while insane (or in fact, more usually to protect other people). If harm comes to them, then they are deprived of that right [bodily integrity]. And in the case of suicide, of all their other rights too.

Instead you paraphrase this and present it as your own rationale. Classy.

Clearly you don't really want to talk. Several people here, self included, have asked you not for the "evidence" of your God, but for the "small points" that you claim, when added together, make up your faith. Do you give it? No. Instead we get this:

Ah, screw this. You're not listening to us anyway.

And this is supposed to be a rational response?

(Yes, it is a rational response to your constant evasions. Was that a rhetorical question?)

What are we expected to make of this?

So far the evidence I am looking at is that there is a core of central athiest beliefs and that is reflected her (sic). As for the diverse points of view expressed here I must admit that that I do not see.

If that is true, then you are either not actually reading what is written here, or are so blinkered as to be unable to see the points of difference. This thread alone has had a number of different debates. And I know you've read it. You keep saying so, so it must be true.

Sure, most posters here have similar views on a number of issues. Abortion is one of them, although it has been hotly debated by avowed atheists in the past. How precisely do you determine that this position is

gathered from your central beliefs ?

And come to that, what do you say our central beliefs are, other than materialism, which you previously asserted (wrongly - see epeeist's rebuttal)?

714. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145725 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 3:48 am

Bayesian arguments in US courts:

AFAIK, "inadmissible" is not a general rule.

The Daubert case (US Supreme Court) essentially says that expert opinions based on a scientific technique are inadmissible unless the technique is "generally accepted".

The issue is that Bayesian analysis is not the full "technique" in question. In legal terms, the technique includes determining the priors and assessing their respective probabilities. That's to say, you can't just make up your own view of facts which the jury is supposed to decide, apply a Bayesian analysis and present the answer in expert testimony. Unfortunately, there are a worrying number of "experts", and attorneys, who think you can.

It's much easier to report this as "Bayesian analysis is inadmissible, says judge". Law is as susceptible to inaccurate reporting as science, and this is partly why it suffers from some of the same public image problems.

715. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144452 by hungarianelephant on March 16, 2008 at 5:12 am

There's some good sense in this article, and then he goes and ruins it all with

The way to solve the problem is by framing the issue.

That might work temporarily, but in the long run, people work out when they are being bullshitted. And that damages the whole case, because the people you are trying to convince might never believe another word you say again.

This is partly why science and scientists have a dreadful reputation in the world at large. Most of us here are reasonably scientifically literate, and delighted to read about progress in our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, and how science can improve people's lives.

That is not most people's experience of "science". The mass media feed them a diet of "reports" about what is good for their health, or their children, or their environment, and quite often directly contradicts what they were told by other "scientists" last week. Sometimes they are being told things that are so far detached from reality that it is laughable. Does anyone really think that two pints of beer constitute a "binge"?

The public may not understand science, but they are well able to understand when politicians are using it as a justification to increase taxes and interfere more in their lives. And their only contact with anyone approaching a real scientist is their doctor, who gives them 8 minutes of time and a prescription which is frequently useless.

Prof. Dawkins sees alternative medicine as a symptom of lack of rationality. I think he is wrong. In my experience, people turn to alternative medicine because they are suspicious of conventional medicine. It is a form of rebellion against a status quo which doesn't work properly. The precise form may not be rational, but the underlying sentiment is understandable.

Much of the problem lies in the huge gulf between science as perceived and science as actually practised. Most people are never going to understand what particle accelerators do, or why. But on the other had, if people had a better understanding of the scientific method, they might have a better idea of how science can be used, and a clearer / more rational notion of when it is being misused. (I also agree with 24. Comment #144397 by bucketchemist.)

If scientific method is actually taught in school, I missed it, despite taking up all the science options. I would bet that not one person in 100 could give a passable description of it.

Try starting there.

716. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143793 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Excellent post by Teratornis (143777), as usual. Thank you.

(I'd use Rank This Comment, but does anyone actually use the rankings?)

717. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143706 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 10:06 am

That must be the first time ever that a post has become less intelligible after the LOLspeak stops and the English starts.

And I use the word "English" loosely.

718. Fleabytes

Comment #143636 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

OK, everyone, given that this thread shows no sign of abating, here's a little competition. Guess the final number of posts in this thread.

Rules:
(1) Put what you like in the comments, but only entries by PM will be accepted. Otherwise we know what will happen.
(2) The thread will be deemed "finished" when there have been no posts for 7 days.
(3) Anyone found deleting posts or adding obvious non-content will be disqualified and publicly shamed.
(4) In the event of a tie, the winner will be the person who completes the following tie-breaker in the most amusing fashion, in the opinion of the judge: "Clearthinker has contributed to my life by __________" (max 50 words).
(5) Judge's decision is final.
(6) The prize will be one copy of The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths by David Robertson. Second prize may be given in the discretion of the judge, and if so will be two copies of same. No cash alternative.
(7) Open only to residents of countries with an Amazon presence, plus Ireland. Not available to employees of RD.net or the Free Church of Scotland.

719. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143607 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:41 am

I understood all the words in that article.

720. Fleabytes

Comment #143592 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:20 am

5280. Comment #143575 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 8:01 am

Fact is - the more complex the tools one can produce and/or use are the more functional abilities one has.

Without arguing with that, I do sometimes wonder about the extent to which this argument is deployed.

Language aside, we are great tool users. But the tools are nearly always designed by humans, for humans. Experiments have shown that pigs can use joysticks and computer screens, a quite complicated human tool. I wonder how much more they could do if they had the dexterity and the inclination.

As for tool production, most humans are actually pretty limited. Few of us could make a telephone, a sandwich toaster or a pencil. A makeshift support made of beer mats to stop the table from wobbling is regarded as the height of spontaneous human ingenuity in some pubs.

We're good at standing on the shoulders of giants, to be sure. But how far can you push that as a point of difference?

721. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143578 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

117. Comment #143381 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:21 am

I think there are certain things that are so dehumanizing that even entering into the debate lends them undeserved legitimacy. For example, we don't debate whether Blacks are fully humans.

I'm with you thus far. Of course, we needed to get to the stage where this was a lunatic fringe view. It was not always thus. It is not thus amongst certain sections - I am thinking particularly of some football fans' monkey noises to black players.

Legal banning of such speech is a way to send a signal that such ideas are simply not debatable, just as it is not a debatable matter whether we should send handicaped people to death camps.

We have to part company there.

It is not the job of legislators to "send signals". This is a dangerous postmodern notion which attempts to excuse legislative excess; to give our elected representatives apparent authority to interfere with our lives in ever greater detail.

The purpose of legislators is to make laws which regulate the conduct between people, each other, other entities like corporations, and the state. Once we give up on trying to do that by means which are clear, we have given up on the rule of law.

In Ireland the government is trying to rewrite the sexual offences legislation. One of the issues is the age of consent. A government minister has seriously argued that there should be a fixed age of consent (17) for both boys and girls, with no defence of honest mistake, and relying on prosecutors to enforce the law only in "appropriate" cases. This argument would barely have passed muster in the court of Henry VIII. On that basis, we may as well outlaw all sexual activity, and leave it to the alleged good sense of prosecutors to decide what is necessary to protect the public.

I appreciate that you are not arguing for this. Unfortunately, it is the logical consequence of advocating that legislators send signals.

To your substantive point, I can agree that

There is a point where ideas cease to be just abstract ideas and become a form of persecution.

I'm less sure where that point is. Unacceptable as the monkey noises are, I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to characterise them as "persecution" and criminalise them. Sure, pick out the idiots on camera, throw them out of the ground, ban them for life and publish their photos in the local paper. Better still, if the players simply refused to play when they heard racists chants, the whole thing would stop pretty quickly. But if history has taught us anything, it is that censorship tends to have the reverse effect of the one intended. Burn a heretic, another two pop up.

722. Fleabytes

Comment #143507 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 7:07 am

5216. Comment #143465 by ForestMist on March 14, 2008 at 6:17 am

Where do churches / theists get the thing about animals not having souls / going to heaven thing from?

Same place they get everything else which isn't literally stated in the bible - their infallible arse.

723. Fleabytes

Comment #143461 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 6:09 am

5204. Comment #143449 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:53 am

I am a supporter of the idea that the Great Apes should be protected, though.

Once you go down that road, you probably also have to protect dolphins, elephants (Hungarian or otherwise), parrots and cockatoos. And possibly cats and dogs. And then ... well maybe some kind of sliding scale.

Personally I'd see this as a good thing, and we may as well start with the Great Apes.

Be prepared for resistance though. Including from - surprise surprise - the churches! Yes indeed, folks, because acknowledging that we are animals undermines two thousand years of theology. Milly the Rabbit will not be going to heaven, because she doesn't have a soul.

724. Fleabytes

Comment #143444 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

With a heavy heart, as I know this is ultimately futile:

5156. Comment #143396 by clearthinker on March 14, 2008 at 4:59 am

Firstly nobody has a right to do what they want with their own body. My wife works as a Mental Health Officer and the major part of her job is "sectioning" people who want to harm themselves and do what they want to their own body. Society recognizes that I do not have what you seem to be claiming as an absolute right.

Nonsense. People are sectioned precisely because they have a collection of rights, including the right to do what they want with their own body. Sectioning is done to protect them from what they might do while insane (or in fact, more usually to protect other people). If harm comes to them, then they are deprived of that right. And in the case of suicide, of all their other rights too. It is not remotely relevant to the question of the extent of a person's rights over his/her body.

Secondly as science clearly demonstrates - it is not just your body. There is the body of the child within. Science now tells us that the body within the womb has everything that the body outwith the womb has.

If that is what you believe, you really need to read a decent biology book.

If what you mean is that at around 8 weeks after conception, the foetus has a complete set of organs, then that is true. Unfortunately, it doesn't help your argument much unless you're prepared to concede that an embryo before this point is not a human. That is not, as far as I know, the position of any religious authority at this time. Is it yours?

Even if it were, a complete set of organs is hardly a useful defining factor. The woman has something rather important that the foetus does not, and that is the ability to survive if not provided with constant care.

There are some reasonable arguments against abortion, but that isn't one of them. You would be well advised not to accuse someone of being irrational and illogical if you cannot come up with any decent counter-arguments yourself.

Why do you regard the body of the mother as sacred but the body of the child is dispensible?

Straw man on so many levels.

Ah, screw this. You're not listening to us anyway.

I don't know what you get out of coming here and posting. I really don't. You applaud Richard Morgan's call for listening and appreciation of other points of view, and then post a lot of further misrepresentations of arguments. You have constructed a view of "atheism" as some sort of complete alternative belief system. People here have tried to explain to you that this doesn't exist, as if it weren't obvious enough from the diverse points of view expressed here. Some have done it politely, others less so, and some downright abusively. None of it makes the slightest impact on you.

The only conclusion I can reach is that you come here with the deliberate intention of winding people up. In other words, that you are a troll.

I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. I'm even prepared to be persuaded that, as you say, faith is made up of the small points. So why not give us the small points and explain why they make up something more than a lot of wishful thinking and argument from ignorance? Then we can have a reasonable discussion about whether there's something worthwhile in your faith. Otherwise, it's just shouting at each other.

725. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143345 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 3:07 am

85. Comment #143326 by Russell Blackford on March 14, 2008 at 2:29 am

*Note: I'm not thinking in this post about things like false commercial speech, i.e. misleading advertising and the like. I think that raises a different set of issues.

Russell - Can you elaborate on that? Why is lying in order to sell a commercial product different from lying in order to persuade people to take up, say, a "spiritual" product? And where does lying about a commercial product in a manner which could damage it fit in? I'd be interested to get your perspective. It's talked about in legal circles, but most are not prepared to stray too far from the status quo?

726. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143343 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 3:01 am

Civil partnerships are "an abuse" of the church's teaching on marriage, he told Times Online.

Let's have a look at the church's teaching on marriage, shall we?

Genesis contains several descriptions of polygamy. But the church teaches that they are wrong anyway.

In fact, the Catholic church only recognises marriages that take place in a Catholic ceremony. All other purported marriages do not exist, and accordingly the relationship is sinful. According to my dear but sadly afflicted mother-in-law, I am not married to her daughter, which was news to us.

The UK proceeds to offer a civil partnership, which is explicitly not a "marriage", since too many of the snooker-viewing generation would have objected. This, apparently, is an "abuse", whereas the twenty million non-marriages which do style themselves as marriage are unworthy of comment.

Hmm. Why do I get the feeling that this boils down to prejudice against gays rather than defence of the church?

727. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143315 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 1:50 am

74. Comment #143293 by Cartomancer on March 13, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I sit like a big gay spider ...

And we have a winner of the Surreal Mental Image Of The Week Award.

That will haunt me all day. Brilliant.

728. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143030 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 am

Still, it's good to know that Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail. I was worried for a moment that they might have forgotten about one half of the task.

729. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143026 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 am

Asked if that applied to works by authors such as Karl Marx and Albert Camus, he told the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee: "Suppose you went into a school and found in the library material that said the Holocaust never took place?"

Eh? What sort of an answer is that?

Asked if that applied to works by authors such as Karl Marx and Albert Camus, he told the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee: "My halibut is turning purple."

There. An answer that makes as much sense, and is slightly more pertinent to the question.

You're welcome, Bish.

730. Fleabytes

Comment #142988 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 9:57 am

5056. Comment #142980 by irate_atheist on March 13, 2008 at 9:45 am

Good grief. What a long way to write 'because I believe so.'

In a way I'm glad you're a vicar. You'd be a downright liability in any other profession.

Ahem *laywers* ahem.

731. Two More Fleas

Comment #142920 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 7:50 am

It's like having a mad aunt in the attic, isn't it?

Mabel, no one is stealing your pension, ok? I said NO ONE IS STEALING YOUR PENSION.

732. Fleabytes

Comment #142771 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

4923. Comment #142767 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 4:59 am

One should be sceptical of whatever anyone says.

Evidence, please.

733. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142300 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 9:24 am

That's English? Has anyone informed Oxford?

734. Fleabytes

Comment #142254 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 7:41 am

4735. Comment #142228 by al-rawandi on March 12, 2008 at 7:01 am

You didn't mention 11 year olds receiving contraception without parental consent.

No. I was pointing out the issue generally as one in which theists, in this case the Catholic church, attempt to coerce others based on their beliefs. It probably doesn't sit quite as well in the list of "things that merit discussion" - though the very fact that we're discussing it suggests that it has at least some place. The fact that "we" have good arguments shouldn't foreclose that discussion any more than the bible.

This has more to do with what rights do parents have in regards to their children and what rights the state has to educate them and provide them with safe means (any kind of health issue).

This is about rights, not specifically contraception.

I'm inclined to think that "rights" rarely add anything worthwhile to a debate. A child has a "right" to express him/herself sexually and a "right" to health. A parent has a "right" to direct the moral guidance of the child. The state possibly has a "right" to educate children (though that's a novel concept - the framers of the US Constitution would certainly not have recognised the concept of a state "right".) Now what? You're left with competing interests and have to decide which "right" wins. Then you have to get into the underlying moral philosophy. Better to do that straight away and cut out the middleman.

"My right", in the vernacular, appears to mean no more than "I want this, so please shut up". Witness the manner in which debates over smoking bans were conducted.

735. Fleabytes

Comment #142224 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 6:55 am

4714. Comment #142195 by al-rawandi on March 12, 2008 at 6:22 am

Why does contraception merit discussion.

Statistics show "Abstinence Only" has been a miserable failure. Contraception is obviously a good thing.

It's fair to say that "liberal" sex education has not been a resounding success either.

If we're talking about contraception for adults, then that should be a very short discussion - though given that a billion people nominally subscribe to the idea that it is "wrong", it would probably be a good idea at least to raise the subject.

When we're talking about schools giving contraceptives to 11 year olds without their parents' knowledge, then I think that's a subject worthy of discussion.

Whether religious bodies have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion remains to be seen. That was my point.

736. Fleabytes

Comment #142192 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 6:16 am

4673. Comment #142135 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:51 am

I am perfectly convinced that DR honestly believes he is not a liar. I could even imagine that if we all had a cosy get together over a cup of tea, leaving our weapons at the door, we would be able to arrive at some kind of understanding of where the other is coming from, and why.

That may be true. But I am not convinced that it would get us anywhere.

In every relationship I have ever known, there are some things that cannot be discussed. We know what they are - or if we don't, we find out pretty quickly - and we know what the consequence of picking at the scab will be. So we make our peace with it, or leave the relationship.

If we could leave it as a cosmological disagreement, then we could probably all get along quite nicely. I'm sure most of us here couldn't care less whether theists believe in God, Santa, the Tooth Fairy or, in Rev Dark's immortal words, Bert the Magic Sodding Penguin. Is there anything worthwhile in religion? Probably. Is it worth discussing? Probably.

But some theists just won't leave it at that. They have to introduce their holy Because-I-Say-So books into the discussion - the very thing that they know cannot be accepted by atheists, or by people of a different religion.

In the last few days, we have had the pleasure of various religious "authorities" opining on the following subjects (see "News" at the top of the home page):

- the teaching of biology in Oklahoma
- genetic manipulation
- abortion
- contraception
- wealth distribution
- special protection for religious groups in the form of blasphemy laws
- narcotics
- the introduction of different and localised laws (specifically Sharia)

All of these subjects merit discussion, and I don't think any of us would seek to prevent religious people from involving themselves in the debate. But when their contribution boils down to a reference to an immutable body of dogma, unsupported by evidence, then you have to ask who is not engaging with whom.

737. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141926 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

MPhil - I agree with you and didn't intend to suggest that you held those views. Just to try to point out the consequences of a sensible principle becoming an article of faith (as this one has, IMO). As you say, it's more complicated than that.

738. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141914 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 11:33 am

166. Comment #141894 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 10:35 am

I doubt you would want a society where the people do not value human life.

No. But on the other hand, you can take it too far.

There are people who consider a zygote "human life" and claim that its alleged right to survive trumps all other considerations, including the similar right of its mother.

There are people who in the name of "human life" are prepared to drive thousands of other species to extinction.

"Human life" and the indefinite extension thereof appears to have become the guiding principle of our health service, to the point that 90% of health spending goes on the last 10% of people's lives.

At some point, it must be appropriate to question whether "human life" should rule these matters out of discussion.

[edited for grammar]

739. Fleabytes

Comment #141895 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 10:39 am

4546. Comment #141870 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 am
4552. Comment #141880 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 10:13 am

There's always someone who can develop a point better than me. I learn so much here.

Religious people seem to do so as well - until they are cornered, when they try to weasel to a coherence-theory of truth... which won't do them any good, since they most likely entertain some scientific beliefs and logical beliefs as well which are not coherent with their beliefs in the truth of their dogma.

To be fair, this isn't confined to religious people. Most of us hold views that are not entirely consistent with other views we hold. We have to do this as a matter of practical convenience. The difference is that some of us are prepared to have our world-model changed and discard previous views. It's a lot more difficult to do that when your core belief is that there's this book of ultimate truth that you have to follow.

It's a rare theist who will say "Look, I know I can't prove the existence of God or provide a shred of empirical evidence. And yet I do believe."

740. Fleabytes

Comment #141852 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 9:42 am

4506. Comment #141815 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

As I'm not a scientist I leave science to those that study it and assume that, as many scientists believe in God, there's no conflict there anyway. At their core thay are both a search for the truth, I'm happy with that.

See, apart from the compartmentalisation problem which kaiserkriss refers to, I think the problem here is with the word "truth".

When scientists use the word, they mean "factually correct".

When religious people use it, they generally mean something much more nebulous, in the nature of the feeling of spiritual enlightenment. Personally I suspect that it's all a load of bollocks, but there are plenty of atheists who think that pursuit is worthwhile. Sam Harris is among them.

Having been dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century, the Catholic church no longer disputes many science-truth-claims: young earth is gone, evolution is accepted. And instead it talks about the "essential truth" of the bible. While it isn't terribly clear what that is supposed to mean, it definitely doesn't mean the same as what scientists mean.

The discussion goes pear-shaped unless we can agree on the basic meaning of the word "truth". The church won't play that game, of course, because then it would have to admit that it attempting to slip its own worldview into the discussion while pretending that it was objectively justified.

741. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141399 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:58 am

Fortunately, unsporting behaviour didn't make it onto the list. Otherwise this priest might have been in a spot of bother.

[Edit: fixed link. Sorry about that.]

742. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141389 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

Cartomancer - Bah! I only made level 6. I think this test discriminates against heterosexuals. No fair.

743. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141373 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:10 am

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".

The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.

Surely some misreporting here?

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of the Church to oppress women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".

The mass media had "blown up" reported the issue "to discredit the Church" because a few journalists thought that it was wrong that the Church should cover up the rape of young children, but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it attempting to cover its arse by vigorously defending all the lawsuits, moaning about bankruptcy, issuing mealy-mouthed apologies, appointing the coverer-up in chief as Pope and leaning on the Irish government to write it a large cheque from the taxpayers.

There. Fixed.

744. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141298 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 8:46 am

Well done, Mitchell.

Once we ruled out Quetz, I thought you were Spinoza for a while, but something didn't quite fit. That was a load of utter tripe. Congratulations.

745. Fleabytes

Comment #141229 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

Dr Benway - I'm not rigid about the number three. How does it work in cricket?

One chance is all you get.

It's a vicious game. Don't let the whites and the cucumber sandwiches fool you.

746. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141226 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 7:24 am

Quetz - A remark about omnipotence which reminded me of your formulation of your own powers. And also the gutter mind which thinks that black holes are where God puts his penis. ;)

Never mind.

747. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141193 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

Quetz - No. I can spell and my grammar and vocabulary is superior. :)

That much is clear, of course.

But Wheeler's poor command of English appears to be selective. S/he constructs meaningful (and I used the word in its loosest sense) sentences better when posting quickly than in the first place.

This is clearly a wind-up. I hoped it was you. Evidently not. Who else is missing?

748. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #141187 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

DoubleBassAtheist (140569) - Question for our British counterparts:
How come the UK has an official 'Church of England', but as a nation, is very secular; And yet here in the US we have a constitutional separation of church and state, but we're so much more pious? How did you guys manage that?

As well as some of the other possibilities, another is that the people of these islands tend to favour pragmatism over principle. They aren't well disposed to extremism of any kind and are generally quite suspicious of any kind of centralised control. Neither communism nor fascism made much headway, even in their golden years.

I'm inclined to think that religious extremism would have as hard a time taking hold as the various political forms of extremism. From its inception, the CofE faced the most problems when it was at its most militant, and every time it burnt a Catholic, another two popped up. Whereas it had a better chance of retaining a privileged position if it didn't get too uppity.

Just another thought to add to the mix.

749. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141167 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:27 am

So:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't know.
6. The milky way is God's ejaculate.
7. Black holes are God's masturbatory aid.
8. God killed all the other gods at an unspecified time.

Quetz, is that you toying with us?

750. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141127 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 5:07 am

Ho hum. Another day, another version of the random comment generator.

Tip: it can be switched off in IE by pressing Alt-F4.